prelag wrote:I thought up until the train-wreck that was last year, Hasselbeck was a top 10 QB and Seneca was a solid backup. My gripe with the situation is that Whitehurst is being treated as a franchise QB. If he was coming in here to backup Hasselbeck, we could have just signed Derek Anderson and kept our 2nd and 3rd round picks.

So, if we treat him like a franchise QB, then we need to compare him to other starting QB's in the league. The fact that he is no where near as good as Philip Rivers, and cant beat out a vet like Volek for the #2 job, tells me Seattle is either stupid, or insanely brilliant.

Who says we are treating him like a "franchise" QB?

1) We didn't trade a #1 for him2) We didn't sign him to a huge/long contract

You've made up your mind and it is pointless for me to try and change it, but at least stay in a little place I like to call "reality". Whether you agree or not, the Org has decided that none of the QB's that may be available to us are what we are looking for, so we've decided to take a small gamble on Whitehurst. We still have a veteran backup and next year's QB class looks better. In the meantime, we can focus on other problem areas.

I would absolutely love to eat crow on this. As it stands now, if I'm a Charger fan, I'm laughing hysterically and dancing--and haven't yet cracked the champagne--my team just moved up 20 spots in a draft stocked in that range and aqcuired a likely high 3rd rounder next year for a guy that probably would never have done a thing on my team's roster.

The more I think about it, the more I think we got bent over and broom handled.

“We need to be challenged, ... and we need to be under the gun to respond.” --Pete Carroll

prelag wrote:I thought up until the train-wreck that was last year, Hasselbeck was a top 10 QB and Seneca was a solid backup. My gripe with the situation is that Whitehurst is being treated as a franchise QB. If he was coming in here to backup Hasselbeck, we could have just signed Derek Anderson and kept our 2nd and 3rd round picks.

So, if we treat him like a franchise QB, then we need to compare him to other starting QB's in the league. The fact that he is no where near as good as Philip Rivers, and cant beat out a vet like Volek for the #2 job, tells me Seattle is either stupid, or insanely brilliant.

Who says we are treating him like a "franchise" QB?

1) We didn't trade a #1 for him2) We didn't sign him to a huge/long contract

You've made up your mind and it is pointless for me to try and change it, but at least stay in a little place I like to call "reality". Whether you agree or not, the Org has decided that none of the QB's that may be available to us are what we are looking for, so we've decided to take a small gamble on Whitehurst. We still have a veteran backup and next year's QB class looks better. In the meantime, we can focus on other problem areas.

We didn't sign him to a huge contract? Guy is getting 10mil for 2 years. Considering he has done nothing IN the NFL for the past 3 years, I'd say that is a large sum.

Forget money though, we dropped 20 spots in the 2nd round, and lost our 3rd for next year. That alone is more then I can swallow.

prelag wrote:I thought up until the train-wreck that was last year, Hasselbeck was a top 10 QB and Seneca was a solid backup. My gripe with the situation is that Whitehurst is being treated as a franchise QB. If he was coming in here to backup Hasselbeck, we could have just signed Derek Anderson and kept our 2nd and 3rd round picks.

So, if we treat him like a franchise QB, then we need to compare him to other starting QB's in the league. The fact that he is no where near as good as Philip Rivers, and cant beat out a vet like Volek for the #2 job, tells me Seattle is either stupid, or insanely brilliant.

Who says we are treating him like a "franchise" QB?

1) We didn't trade a #1 for him2) We didn't sign him to a huge/long contract

You've made up your mind and it is pointless for me to try and change it, but at least stay in a little place I like to call "reality". Whether you agree or not, the Org has decided that none of the QB's that may be available to us are what we are looking for, so we've decided to take a small gamble on Whitehurst. We still have a veteran backup and next year's QB class looks better. In the meantime, we can focus on other problem areas.

We didn't sign him to a huge contract? Guy is getting 10mil for 2 years. Considering he has done nothing IN the NFL for the past 3 years, I'd say that is a large sum.

Forget money though, we dropped 20 spots in the 2nd round, and lost our 3rd for next year. That alone is more then I can swallow.

Yes, that's much worse than spending a high 1st round pick on a complete unknown quantity.

Yes, that's much worse than spending a high 1st round pick on a complete unknown quantity.

Yet teams do it every draft. Wonder why?

By your logic, we should never spend a 1st round pick. If we were to use one, we would be investing in a complete unknown quantity.

Unless of course, you specifically meant the QB position. If so, is there some information about Whitehurst you'd care to share with the rest of us?

No, by my logic, we shouldn't get all worked up over spending a late 2nd/early 3rd round on a prospective starting QB just because he has no NFL regular season experience precisely because teams do it all the time. And they often do it with higher stakes, spending earlier picks and more guaranteed money.

Yes, that's much worse than spending a high 1st round pick on a complete unknown quantity.

Yet teams do it every draft. Wonder why?

By your logic, we should never spend a 1st round pick. If we were to use one, we would be investing in a complete unknown quantity.

Unless of course, you specifically meant the QB position. If so, is there some information about Whitehurst you'd care to share with the rest of us?

No, by my logic, we shouldn't get all worked up over spending a late 2nd/early 3rd round on a prospective starting QB just because he has no NFL regular season experience precisely because teams do it all the time. And they often do it with higher stakes, spending earlier picks and more guaranteed money.

Examples of teams that have given up as much or more then we have for a 3rd string QB, in our case, one with no game experience I might add. Hell, has there been a team this year to use anything higher then a 3rd on a FA QB?

Also, how is the #40 a late second? Its an early 2nd. Early enough to draft a stud RB or safety.

I don't think this was a bad move Matt had virtually no experience when Seattle traded for him and we gave up Ahman Green. Worst case scenario we get a back up QB with more upside that Wallace until next season when we could possibly draft the Kid from Washington. I think there was more pressing needs than quarterback that need to be addressed first like our line running game defense and wideout. With none of these things getting fixed quarterback wont matter.

Im Sorry but good god dude. I know your not drinking the cool-aid but don't pee in it eather some draft picks never work out and if you can get some one with half decent skills you go for it. He was on san deigo. not like he was the third stringer on the rams or lions. Come on Yes draft picks are important but they can also set your franchise back decades too look at the lions

God Bless America and God Bless the SEATTLE SEAHAWKS - TEZ

Mike Bullene ‏@12thManM1ke 45m@TDESPN Though, you did say the other night you cannot win the SB riding a defense. Even though you are literally the poster child for that. --twittered back at dilfer after he tried to slam hawks fans.

"I seriously doubt a 3rd round tender would be gotten for Charlie.I mean seriously we just traded a former pro-bowl CB in Cromartie for a 3rd round tender. The thought of a guy who has taken a handful of snaps at the pro level after 4 years, doesn't really add up to getting a 3rd rounder for him.Not saying some desperate team wouldn't just saying it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY."

and

"I would gladly give him up for a 3rd.I din't think that it will happen though."

and

"Maybe we get a fifth or sixth rounder. Maybe a fourth next year."

Most current posts looks like this:

"Suck on that all you AJ doubters.""

and

"A.J. SMITH IS GOD !!!!!!

ALL WHO DOUBT WILL BE CAST DOWN INTO THE BOWELS OF THE FORUM

POSTERS SHOULD GET ON THEIR KNEES !!!"

And....wait for it.....

"HAHAHAHAHA OMG

Its a great feeling to come home after a long day and see that AJ moved us up 20 spots in the 2nd, and got us an extra 3rd next year for a guy who has never thrown a pass in the NFL."

Enough said. What does it mean? Nothing of course....I just wish ONE of our threads could share even a resemblance to theirs. First Seneca, then Tapp, Now this....God, I hope my frustrations are unfounded.

"I seriously doubt a 3rd round tender would be gotten for Charlie.I mean seriously we just traded a former pro-bowl CB in Cromartie for a 3rd round tender. The thought of a guy who has taken a handful of snaps at the pro level after 4 years, doesn't really add up to getting a 3rd rounder for him.Not saying some desperate team wouldn't just saying it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY."

and

"I would gladly give him up for a 3rd.I din't think that it will happen though."

and

"Maybe we get a fifth or sixth rounder. Maybe a fourth next year."

Most current posts looks like this:

"Suck on that all you AJ doubters.""

and

"A.J. SMITH IS GOD !!!!!!

ALL WHO DOUBT WILL BE CAST DOWN INTO THE BOWELS OF THE FORUM

POSTERS SHOULD GET ON THEIR KNEES !!!"

And....wait for it.....

"HAHAHAHAHA OMG

Its a great feeling to come home after a long day and see that AJ moved us up 20 spots in the 2nd, and got us an extra 3rd next year for a guy who has never thrown a pass in the NFL."

Enough said. What does it mean? Nothing of course....I just wish ONE of our threads could share even a resemblance to theirs. First Seneca, then Tapp, Now this....God, I hope my frustrations are unfounded.

It's not. Only the sheep on this forum are out sugar coating the deal.

I would be partying if I was a Chargers fan as well. It was a total coupe by their GM.

It's only natural for the SD fans to be stoked; they flat-out didn't need the guy. They have a stud at starting QB and a more than capable #2 still on the roster. I don't believe those comments are an indictment of Whitehurst's abilities.

volsunghawk wrote:No, by my logic, we shouldn't get all worked up over spending a late 2nd/early 3rd round on a prospective starting QB just because he has no NFL regular season experience precisely because teams do it all the time. And they often do it with higher stakes, spending earlier picks and more guaranteed money.

Examples of teams that have given up as much or more then we have for a 3rd string QB, in our case, one with no game experience I might add. Hell, has there been a team this year to use anything higher then a 3rd on a FA QB?

Also, how is the #40 a late second? Its an early 2nd. Early enough to draft a stud RB or safety.

You keep calling Whitehurst a 3rd-string QB, but rookies in the draft are NO string QBs until they're brought in. They haven't even proven they can make an NFL roster.

The total value of the picks traded for Whitehurst is worth a late 2nd/early 3rd. It's not like we just tossed our 2nd round pick away. We got #60 in return, which is a late 2nd. Combine that with the 2011 3rd, and the value comes out to around the 2nd round/3rd round border. And by the way, you can still get "stud" players at the end of the 2nd, just as easily as you can get a bust early in the 1st.

The Hawks overpaid. Very few would dispute that. But the FO obviously identified QB as a need and weren't satisfied with any of the guys in the draft. Seeing all the question marks covering their grades I can easily agree with Carroll and company. There just isn't anyone there to get excited about, especially for a 1st round pick. So the question becomes, should they ignore the hole and wait until next year, or try to fill it with the guy they like the most and can get.

The FO obviously likes Whitehurst, and I haven't seen enough yet to judge their evaluation skills one way or another. As I said is a previous thread, this move will go along ways in defining this regime. But those who want to call Whitehurst a bum are not giving the move a fair shake. Let's see what he looks like in a Hawks uniform before condemning the pickup.

volsunghawk wrote:No, by my logic, we shouldn't get all worked up over spending a late 2nd/early 3rd round on a prospective starting QB just because he has no NFL regular season experience precisely because teams do it all the time. And they often do it with higher stakes, spending earlier picks and more guaranteed money.

Examples of teams that have given up as much or more then we have for a 3rd string QB, in our case, one with no game experience I might add. Hell, has there been a team this year to use anything higher then a 3rd on a FA QB?

Also, how is the #40 a late second? Its an early 2nd. Early enough to draft a stud RB or safety.

You keep calling Whitehurst a 3rd-string QB, but rookies in the draft are NO string QBs until they're brought in. They haven't even proven they can make an NFL roster.

The total value of the picks traded for Whitehurst is worth a late 2nd/early 3rd. It's not like we just tossed our 2nd round pick away. We got #60 in return, which is a late 2nd. Combine that with the 2011 3rd, and the value comes out to around the 2nd round/3rd round border. And by the way, you can still get "stud" players at the end of the 2nd, just as easily as you can get a bust early in the 1st.

Thats all fine and dandy, but you avoided my question.

Post some QB's that have gone for 2nd round picks in the past 5 years.

I say we bring back Alexander anyone else notice that we didnt start losing till we booted him out the door. And how come LT can have a few injured seasons and he still gets picked up and Shaun didnt. I really hope Carrol can right the ship but I already miss the Holmgren era and its only been one season. Seattle fell too hard too fast.

I have a feeling he could be the equivalent to hass. What had hass done under the shadow of farve before we brought him to Seattle? I have a feeling whitehurst could do the same job and susrpise a lot of people. Guy has simply been playing behind one of the elite backs in the league...and had to move to get the opportunity to show what he could do. I wish we had not given up the number 40....but i still feel he could be a bargain.

SeaTown81 wrote:The Hawks are taking a beating on this deal from everyone all around. It really isn't helping me be more positive about it.

Yeah, pretty much every team board I've gone on since the news broke has had a "What the F are the Seahawks doing?" thread. I like the move, but I know if it was another team doing it, I'd probably be laughing. It's a very unusual acquisition, but that's what I like about it.

Just listened to the ESPN radio thing (it was the Kevin Calabro show but he wasn't there) - stunned about the negativity on there. Some guy said he was disappointed because #40 would've been a good spot for 'Tebow or McCoy' (LOVVVVVVVVVL)... the same guy says it's 'obvious' that Whitehurst was the second choice after Anderson (errr.... NO. That's why Arizona signed him after they lost out on CW). Another guy called him 'Shaun Whitehurst'. Another was basically screaming down the phone about value and talked about the big drop from 40-60... without ANY justification for his complaints. THERE'S NOT SUCH A BIG DROP OFF FROM 40-60!

The best case scenario far outweighs the worst case in this deal. So much negativity on that radio show.

From 40 to 60, BIG DEAL, in the math I learned, that is 20 players. Chances are that we get an impact player there. Wasn't Hamlin taken in about that spot?

As for Whitehurst, its already been said, that there is something we don't know that the people that do this for a living DO know. Another thing is that With Seneca, it was a sense of dread with him starting, now, its simply an unknown.

Oh my god - now JIM MORA is sticking his oar in. 'Matt Hasselbeck deserves better'. Maybe this is the states for you... but in England, when a coach gets fired he either gets another job or he just keeps his head down. He doesn't go on the radio talking about what his replacement is doing with a critical eye.

I'm trying to stay positive too guys, but the fact they the Seahawks gave up so much for someone we really don't know anything about is disappointing. However, I'd rather take a chance on Whitehurst with the contract they gave him then an expensive one that doesn't pan out. In this league, if your first round QB choice doesn't work out, you just screwed yourself for about 4-6 years.

Charlie Whitehurst is 27 soon to be 28 but the fact he has not played and has not been beaten, battered, and bruised he is basically 24 or 25 in football years so i likie this more and more. I don't know if we got a 3rd or not but i think he will be a great player for us.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Maybe this is the states for you... but in England, when a coach gets fired he either gets another job or he just keeps his head down. He doesn't go on the radio talking about what his replacement is doing with a critical eye.

NOT THE STATES.

This is very strange what Mora's been doing. And HIGHLY annoying. JUST GO AWAY!!!

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Oh my god - now JIM MORA is sticking his oar in. 'Matt Hasselbeck deserves better'. Maybe this is the states for you... but in England, when a coach gets fired he either gets another job or he just keeps his head down. He doesn't go on the radio talking about what his replacement is doing with a critical eye.

What a crock.

LMAO! What a freaking hypocrite! Wasn't Mora the one talking like a month ago about how he wanted Sanchez over Curry?

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:The worst case scenario is seattle gave up a bit of draft stock. The best case scenario is - QB position sewn up. The potential pro's far outweigh the con's.

I agree that best-case scenario here is much more good than worst-case scenario is bad. But what are the odds of each? The odds that we lose draft currency is 100%. The odds that we get a good QB (I'm not even saying Pro Bowl, just above average) are what, 25% at best? I don't think anyone has any evidence that this guy has a 50-50 chance of being a good starting QB.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:The worst case scenario is seattle gave up a bit of draft stock. The best case scenario is - QB position sewn up. The potential pro's far outweigh the con's.

I agree that best-case scenario here is much more good than worst-case scenario is bad. But what are the odds of each? The odds that we lose draft currency is 100%. The odds that we get a good QB (I'm not even saying Pro Bowl, just above average) are what, 25% at best? I don't think anyone has any evidence that this guy has a 50-50 chance of being a good starting QB.

When you draft a player you lose that draft currency too, with no assurances that the player will work out for you.